The Manhattan Declaration is a formal “call to arms” to all Christians asking us to engage in the major issues that are shaping our modern society. Following is the summary of this declaration.
Christians, when they have lived up to the highest ideals of their faith, have defended the weak and vulnerable and worked tirelessly to protect and strengthen vital institutions of civil society, beginning with the family.
We are Orthodox, Catholic, and evangelical Christians who have united at this hour to reaffirm fundamental truths about justice and the common good, and to call upon our fellow citizens, believers and non-believers alike, to join us in defending them. These truths are (1) the sanctity of human life, (2) the dignity of marriage as the conjugal union of husband and wife, and (3) the rights of conscience and religious liberty. Inasmuch as these truths are foundational to human dignity and the well-being of society, they are inviolable and non-negotiable. Because they are increasingly under assault from powerful forces in our culture, we are compelled today to speak out forcefully in their defense, and to commit ourselves to honoring them fully no matter what pressures are brought upon us and our institutions to abandon or compromise them. We make this commitment not as partisans of any political group but as followers of Jesus Christ, the crucified and risen Lord, who is the Way, the Truth, and the Life.
Human Life
The lives of the unborn, the disabled, and the elderly are ever more threatened. While public opinion has moved in a pro-life direction, powerful and determined forces are working to expand abortion, embryo-destructive research, assisted suicide, and euthanasia. Although the protection of the weak and vulnerable is the first obligation of government, the power of government is today often enlisted in the cause of promoting what Pope John Paul II called “the culture of death.” We pledge to work unceasingly for the equal protection of every innocent human being at every stage of development and in every condition. We will refuse to permit ourselves or our institutions to be implicated in the taking of human life and we will support in every possible way those who, in conscience, take the same stand.
Marriage
The institution of marriage, already wounded by promiscuity, infidelity and divorce, is at risk of being redefined and thus subverted. Marriage is the original and most important institution for sustaining the health, education, and welfare of all. Where marriage erodes, social pathologies rise. The impulse to redefine marriage is a symptom, rather than the cause, of the erosion of the marriage culture. It reflects a loss of understanding of the meaning of marriage as embodied in our civil law as well as our religious traditions. Yet it is critical that the impulse be resisted, for yielding to it would mean abandoning the possibility of restoring a sound understanding of marriage and, with it, the hope of rebuilding a healthy marriage culture. It would lock into place the false and destructive belief that marriage is all about romance and other adult satisfactions, and not, in any intrinsic way, about the unique character and value of acts and relationships whose meaning is shaped by their aptness for the generation, promotion and protection of life. Marriage is not a “social construction,” but is rather an objective reality—the covenantal union of husband and wife—that it is the duty of the law to recognize, honor, and protect.
Religious Liberty
Freedom of religion and the rights of conscience are gravely jeopardized. The threat to these fundamental principles of justice is evident in efforts to weaken or eliminate conscience protections for healthcare institutions and professionals, and in anti- discrimination statutes that are used as weapons to force religious institutions, charities, businesses, and service providers either to accept (and even facilitate) activities and relationships they judge to be immoral, or go out of business. Attacks on religious liberty are dire threats not only to individuals, but also to the institutions of civil society including families, charities, and religious communities. The health and well-being of such institutions provide an indispensable buffer against the overweening power of government and is essential to the flourishing of every other institution—including government itself—on which society depends.
Unjust Laws
As Christians, we believe in law and we respect the authority of earthly rulers. We count it as a special privilege to live in a democratic society where the moral claims of the law on us are even stronger in virtue of the rights of all citizens to participate in the political process. Yet even in a democratic regime, laws can be unjust. And from the beginning, our faith has taught that civil disobedience is required in the face of gravely unjust laws or laws that purport to require us to do what is unjust or otherwise immoral. Such laws lack the power to bind in conscience because they can claim no authority beyond that of sheer human will.
Therefore, let it be known that we will not comply with any edict that compels us or the institutions we lead to participate in or facilitate abortions, embryo-destructive research, assisted suicide, euthanasia, or any other act that violates the principle of the profound, inherent, and equal dignity of every member of the human family.
Further, let it be known that we will not bend to any rule forcing us to bless immoral sexual partnerships, treat them as marriages or the equivalent, or refrain from proclaiming the truth, as we know it, about morality, marriage, and the family.
Further, let it be known that we will not be intimidated into silence or acquiescence or the violation of our consciences by any power on earth, be it cultural or political, regardless of the consequences to ourselves.
We will fully and ungrudgingly render to Caesar what is Caesar’s. But under no circumstances will we render to Caesar what is God’s.
I have not yet read the entire declaration available for download from their website, but I hope to get to it soon.
Who Signed It
There are literally hundreds of thousands of signers to this Declaration, but below are a few names I recognized from the main list of supporters.
Randy Alcorn
Founder and Director, Eternal Perspective Ministries (EPM) (Sandy, OR)
Kay Arthur
CEO and Co-founder, Precept Ministries International (Chattanooga, TN)
Gary Bauer
President, American Values; Chairman, Campaign for Working Families (Washington D.C.)
Ken Boa
President, Reflections Ministries (Atlanta, GA)
Timothy Clinton
President, American Association of Christian Counselors (Forest, VA)
Chuck Colson
Founder, the Chuck Colson Center for Christian Worldview (Lansdowne, VA)
Rev. Daniel Delgado
Board of Directors, National Hispanic Christian Leadership Conference & Pastor, Third Day Missions Church (Staten Island, NY)
Dr. James Dobson
Founder, Focus on the Family (Colorado Springs, CO)
Dinesh D’Souza
Writer & Speaker (Rancho Santa Fe, CA)
Dr. Wayne Grudem
Research Professor of Theological and Biblical Studies, Phoenix Seminary (Phoenix, AZ)
Rev. Ken Hutcherson
Pastor, Antioch Bible Church (Kirkland, WA)
Rev. Tim Keller
Senior Pastor, Redeemer Presbyterian Church (New York, NY)
Dr. Richard Land
President, The Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission of the SBC (Washington, DC)
Josh McDowell
Founder, Josh McDowell Ministries (Plano, TX)
Dr. Tom Oden
Theologian, United Methodist Minister and Professor, Drew University (Madison, NJ)
Marvin Olasky
Editor-in-Chief, World Magazine and provost, The Kings College (New York City, NY)
Dr. J.I. Packer
Board of GovernorsÕ Professor of Theology, Regent College (Canada)
Dr. Ron Sider
Director, Evangelicals for Social Action (Wynnewood, PA)
Joni Eareckson Tada
Founder and CEO, Joni and Friends International Disability Center (Agoura Hills, CA)
Paul Young
COO & Executive VP, Christian Research Institute (Charlotte, NC)
Ravi Zacharias
Founder and Chairman of the board, Ravi Zacharias International Ministries (Norcross, GA)
Here are my questions:
- What do you think of this declaration? Is it a genuine call to engage the Christian conscience or a compromise of our faith?
- Will you sign the declaration? Why or why not?
- If you sign it, would you really follow through with the call to civil disobedience and risk imprisonment?
Regarding 
Regarding 
Regarding 
Regarding 
Regarding 
Regarding 
I would like to know the history behind this declaration. The website doesn’t give any details on who or what originally set this declaration in motion. Not that it probably makes much difference but I am curious.
The declaration has the expected signatories and I did not see any surprises among the list.
I wonder in what ways this declaration could be seen as a compromise to faith. You posed the question. I would love to hear other’s responses in regards to this. It has strong language and “if” those who signed it really followed through on what is being agreed to, it could have major repercussions on the faith of those who follow these tenets.
Hi Paula
Christianity Today has an article with some history and links to some other stuff that I think has more information.
Regarding the signatures, the site lists almost 200 names, I just picked some I was familiar with.
I guess what I wanted to explore in the area of “compromise” is, does this just become one more tool for political activism, or does it reflect a movement to put our faith above policy or support of political candidates? In other words, is the declaration a promotion of the Gospel as a solution to our societal woes or a promotion of human laws as a vehicle for change. If the latter, I think that represents a compromise. God had a really good set of laws in the OT and his whole point was to show that Law could not transform and thus we needed Jesus.
I have still yet to read the whole declaration, so I don’t have a conclusion yet but would love some insights from others.
PS.. see my cartoon from last week http://www.morethancake.org/2009/11/blind-foxes-and-the-rock.html
Having read the entire declaration, I can see why you posited the suggestion that this could be a tool for political activism. The document in its entirety has a much stronger political tone than the summary does.
What most concerns me about the Declaration is the demonization of those who do not agree with the views it espouses. I don’t believe that a determined “culture of death” is hell bent on killing the unborn, the elderly, the infirm.
Those who support women’s autonomy, Death with Dignity (or even contraception, sterilization, fertility for unmarried or lesbian women, the honoring of do not resuscitate orders in advance directives, and counseling of others against AIDS and STD contraction) are not evil. They simply don’t ascribe to the same beliefs as the signers and feel their body is their own.
By working politically to impose “traditional” ideas on all members of society, even those who don’t belong to the church, the signers of the Declaration are holding patients’ rights hostage for the sake of their unique convictions. However noble they may see it, they are mandating provider refusal of services that many see as a human right.
Essentially, they are saying that health care reform must abide by their beliefs or 50 million Americans must continue to have no access to life-saving care.
Such a position has nothing to do with the first amendment of religious freedom – most Americans believe that all are free to live by their conscience – and everything to do with a mission to convert the evil sinners who do not believe the same way they do by limiting health care access.
It is an imposition, an overreach, an offense of claiming religious prosecution (under the first amendment) in order to subject society to one’s religious views. All are free, if they have health care, to make their own decisions. The country was not designed to allow one ideology to dictate to all others.
Hi Ann, thanks for sharing your perspective. May I ask you for one clarification regarding the healthcare portion of the declaration? The way I read it was that they wanted to insure that hospitals owned by religious groups and doctors who are Christian would be allowed to not perform abortions against their will. A woman could still go to a state hospital or any doctor that supported abortion. So do you believe a doctor should be allowed the right to not perform an abortion and still not get fired from his job or go to jail?
Thanks in advance for helping clarify your view.
I find it incredibly unfortunate that many – including yourself – conflate all ethical and religious directives with abortion. Sterilization for instance is a service that effects men and women; contraception, STD and AIDS counseling as well. In fact these services have been shown to decrease the number of abortions statistically, scientifically. Entire communities of people are drastically effected by these directives. By conflating abortion and all patients’ rights, both sides of the debate continue to center on one contentious issue.
By working to uphold traditional family values, these signers ignore medical technology unless it serves their purposes. And at the sake of women’s and patients’ rights.
The concept that a fetus is an unborn child is primarily religious in this country. Some do not believe such and feel it is their right to decide when they reproduce. These decisions are not made lightly and I find the demonization and shaming of women in particular to be morally repugnant. Many on the right have claimed moral superiority and continue to shame women for having sex, to dictate how a woman physically acts.
Abortion is a legal service and has been since 1973 and yet women still face hostile public picket lines when going to a clinic where abortions are performed, even if they seek other other services. Because women are accustomed to being lesser members of society, they accept that they must travel for their health care needs. Quality medicine today is hindered by limited access.
Whatever you believe about abortion, you have the right to define your own morality as you wish. Women and men who do not believe as you do not. They are forced to face moral shame, inconvenience, and in many cases to accept that they are lesser members of society because their needs are other than what Catholic or religious political and health care bodies dictate.
Yes, I believe all hospitals that receive public funds (50% of all funds for Catholic and religious hospitals which deny patients’ rights are from the federal government) should provide all medical services, regardless of the moral value a select and vocal segment of society places on them. Using health care as a mission to not only win faith but dictate behavior is not moral. Particularly when about 48 Catholic hospitals are sole providers in areas, meaning there is no other hospital that can be accessed in a timely manner. In the dire case of rape, a woman should be told that she can have emergency contraception to prevent pregnancy. Any patient should be told what the hospital they are entering will and will not do and in the cases where time is of the essence, should be given convenient options. Doing so is only humane.
Portraying such a woman or a low income woman who wants a sterilization or a mother of three children who accidentally becomes pregnant because her pharmacist refuses to fill her birth control prescription is nothing less than forced pregnancy. It is immoral and degrading and not health care. To demonize these women, to call them killers and sluts is a heinous disregard for the situations they are in, for their bodily autonomy, for human rights.
Currently, when Catholic and secular hospitals merge, sometimes negotiations are made to provide all patients with information and resources. If a Catholic facility refuses to provide certain services, they should refer the patient or have a separate facility a patient can source for such services. Yet today, many do not know about the ethical and religious directives and pay dearly for their lack of knowledge because such facilities are unwilling to compromise, despite claims of wanting to find “common ground.” These facilities have decided that their lifestyle is right, despite the fact that they operate in a pluralistic society.
We are a country of many faiths. To give reverence of one over many is the prerogative of the individual, not a social services organization upon which the health of an entire community hangs. I respect everyone’s beliefs but I don’t respect the imposition of those beliefs on others for the sake of “saving the Catholic” or any other church.
One of the great theological precepts of belief is choice. Bartering one’s health for that imposed choice is immoral and unethical.
I could discuss why I think the Declaration was issued and why now but I leave that to others to discern. In short, I think it is political overreaching by a very determined segment of religious bodies. It pointedly does not represent compassionate faith but blatant discrimination that I find offensive to all who choose to believe in God and are guaranteed the right to decide how to live that belief.
HI Ann,
You wrote, “I find it incredibly unfortunate that many – including yourself – conflate all ethical and religious directives with abortion. ”
Wow, not sure where the “including yourself” remark came from and it is unfortunate that you would choose to attack me for asking a question and when you clearly have no idea what my view is.
No, please. Not an attack at all. But you did specifically ask about my views on abortion when I was discussing all services restricted by Ethical and Religious Directives. I find, as I state above, that abortion is often used to represent contested services.
My writing is direct but not meant as an attack. I respect all personal choice, just not the imposition of choices on others.
I hope you find time to address the comments in my post. I’m quite sincere.
I only asked about abortion because that happened to be the part of the declaration I was reading when I asked the question. It is your assumption that I conflate all issues. You may find something to “often” be the case, but that does not make you correct for including me in that category. I hope you will at least have the integrity to concede your error.
So try now to focus on the question instead of reading your assumptions about me into the question.
You said you want choice for everyone and not the imposition of choice on others. Quite frankly in a pluralist democracy, I agree with that principle. But, the question remains do you believe that doctors should be forced to perform ANY of the procedures you mention without fear of jail or loss of job, OR should their choice based on religious convictions be limited to what the government says?
You made a lot of comments, so if you have something specific you want me to address ask a question and I will do my best.
Why I wont sign the Manhattan Declaration By John MacArthur)
Here are the main reasons I am not signing the Manhattan Declaration, even though a few men whom I love and respect have already affixed their names to it:
• Although I obviously agree with the document’s opposition to same-sex marriage, abortion, and other key moral problems threatening our culture, the document falls far short of identifying the one true and ultimate remedy for all of humanity’s moral ills: the gospel. The gospel is barely mentioned in the Declaration. At one point the statement rightly acknowledges, “It is our duty to proclaim the Gospel of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ in its fullness, both in season and out of season”—and then adds an encouraging wish: “May God help us not to fail in that duty.” Yet the gospel itself is nowhere presented (much less explained) in the document or any of the accompanying literature. Indeed, that would be a practical impossibility because of the contradictory views held by the broad range of signatories regarding what the gospel teaches and what it means to be a Christian.
• This is precisely where the document fails most egregiously. It assumes from the start that all signatories are fellow Christians whose only differences have to do with the fact that they represent distinct “communities.” Points of disagreement are tacitly acknowledged but are described as “historic lines of ecclesial differences” rather than fundamental conflicts of doctrine and conviction with regard to the gospel and the question of which teachings are essential to authentic Christianity.
• Instead of acknowledging the true depth of our differences, the implicit assumption (from the start of the document until its final paragraph) is that Roman Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, Protestant Evangelicals and others all share a common faith in and a common commitment to the gospel’s essential claims. The document repeatedly employs expressions like “we [and] our fellow believers”; “As Christians, we . . .”; and “we claim the heritage of . . . Christians.” That seriously muddles the lines of demarcation between authentic biblical Christianity and various apostate traditions.
• The Declaration therefore constitutes a formal avowal of brotherhood between Evangelical signatories and purveyors of different gospels. That is the stated intention of some of the key signatories, and it’s hard to see how secular readers could possibly view it in any other light. Thus for the sake of issuing a manifesto decrying certain moral and political issues, the Declaration obscures both the importance of the gospel and the very substance of the gospel message.
• This is neither a novel approach nor a strategic stand for evangelicals to take. It ought to be clear to all that the agenda behind the recent flurry of proclamations and moral pronouncements we’ve seen promoting ecumenical co-belligerence is the viewpoint Charles Colson has been championing for more than two decades. (It is not without significance that his name is nearly always at the head of the list of drafters when these statements are issued.) He explained his agenda in his 1994 book The Body, in which he argued that the only truly essential doctrines of authentic Christian truth are those spelled out in the Apostles’ and Nicene creeds. I responded to that argument at length in Reckless Faith. I stand by what I wrote then.
In short, support for The Manhattan Declaration would not only contradict the stance I have taken since long before the original “Evangelicals and Catholics Together” document was issued; it would also tacitly relegate the very essence of gospel truth to the level of a secondary issue. That is the wrong way—perhaps the very worst way—for evangelicals to address the moral and political crises of our time. Anything that silences, sidelines, or relegates the gospel to secondary status is antithetical to the principles we affirm when we call ourselves evangelicals.
John MacArthur
Why I Did Sign the Manhattan Declaration By Albert Mohler
I am not inclined to sign manifestos or petitions. While believing strongly and passionately about many causes, I am not usually impressed with the effectiveness of such statements and I am generally concerned about how such statements might be used or construed by others. I am not reluctant to speak for myself and from my own Christian convictions and consequent judgments. Furthermore, the constant exchange of opposing statements on this or that issue merely crowds the public square as opposing viewpoints compete for attention. So, for reasons perhaps both admirable and not so admirable, I prefer to stand on my own public statements.
But I signed The Manhattan Declaration. Indeed, I am among the original signatories to that statement, released to the public at the National Press Club last Friday. Why?
There are several reasons, but they all come down to this — I believe we are facing an inevitable and culture-determining decision on the three issues centrally identified in this statement. I also believe that we will experience a significant loss of Christian churches, denominations, and institutions in this process. There is every good reason to believe that the freedom to conduct Christian ministry according to Christian conviction is being subverted and denied before our eyes. I believe that the sanctity of human life, the integrity of marriage, and religious liberty are very much in danger at this very moment…
I signed The Manhattan Declaration because I believe it is an historic statement of conviction and courage that is both timely and urgent. Over the course of the next few months and years, these issues will be reset in our culture and its laws. These are matters on which the Christian conscience cannot be silent. There are, of course, other issues that demand Christian attention as well. The focus on these three issues is forced by the circumstances of current threats as well as the awareness that the time of decision on these questions has come. Though Christians struggle to understand the extent to which our convictions should be incorporated in the law, we must now recognize that the very respect for these convictions — and the freedom to follow and obey these convictions in our own lives, families, and ministries is now at stake.
I signed The Manhattan Declaration because I lead a theological seminary and college, serve as a teaching pastor in a church, and am engaged in Christian leadership in the public square. Thus I see the threats to Christian liberties that now stare us in the face. The freedom not to perform a same-sex marriage is one thing, but what about the freedom to hire employees according to our Christian convictions? What about the right of Christian ministries to conduct their work according to Christian beliefs? What about the freedom to preach and teach against the grain of the nation’s laws (for example, after the legalization of same-sex marriage)? When do hate crimes laws slide into definitions of “hate speech?” The threats to our religious liberties are immediate and urgent.
I signed The Manhattan Declaration because it is a limited statement of Christian conviction on these three crucial issues, and not a wide-ranging theological document that subverts confessional integrity. I cannot and do not sign documents such as Evangelicals and Catholics Together that attempt to establish common ground on vast theological terrain. I could not sign a statement that purports, for example, to bridge the divide between Roman Catholics and evangelicals on the doctrine of justification. The Manhattan Declaration is not a manifesto for united action. It is a statement of urgent concern and common conscience on these three issues — the sanctity of human life, the integrity of marriage, and the defense of religious liberty.
My beliefs concerning the Roman Catholic Church and the Orthodox churches have not changed. The Roman Catholic Church teaches doctrines that I find both unbiblical and abhorrent — and these doctrines define nothing less than the Gospel of Jesus Christ. But The Manhattan Declaration does not attempt to establish common ground on these doctrines. We remain who we are, and we concede no doctrinal ground.
But when Catholic Charities in Massachusetts chose to end its historic ministry of placing orphaned children in good homes because the State of Massachusetts required it to place children with same-sex couples, this is not just a Catholic issue. The orphanage could have easily been Baptist. When Belmont Abbey college in North Carolina is told by federal authorities that it must offer abortion services in its insurance plans for employees, this is no longer just a Catholic issue. The next institution to be under attack might well be Presbyterian. We are in this together, and we had better be thankful that, in this case, we are not alone.
Finally, I signed The Manhattan Declaration because I want to put my name on its final pledge — that we will not bend the knee to Caesar. We will not participate in any subversion of life. We will not be forced to accept any other relationship as equal in status or rights to heterosexual marriage. We will not refrain from proclaiming the truth — and we will order our churches and institutions and ministries by Christian conviction.
There will be Christian leaders, pastors, seminaries, colleges, universities, denominations, churches, and organizations that will abandon the faith on these issues. They will bend the knee to Caesar. Far too many already have. The signatories to The Manhattan Declaration pledge that we will not be among them.
I want my name on that list. I surrendered no conviction or confessional integrity to sign that statement. No one asked me to compromise in any manner. I was encouraged that we could stand together to make clear that to come for one of us on these issues is to come for all. At the end of the day, I did not want my name missing from that list when folks look to see just who was willing to be listed.
My 2 cents:
“Radical Unity, Radical Separation”
Many evangelical leaders, from both within the SBC, as well as without, have signed the Manhattan Declaration.
Though I am fundamentally in agreement with the basic objectives spelled out in the document, and I have not been loath to add my name to various documents, which, such as this one, seek public support, I have been asking myself, since I first saw it a couple of days ago, whether or not I should add my name to the list of signatories…
If the Manhattan Declaration, for instance, had included Jews, Muslims, and even “moral” atheists, among its signatories, I might be more inclined to jump on board; because, in such a case, it would be clear that this is not a document written and promoted from an implied common perspective on the essentials of the gospel. But, since it claims to be a specifically Christian document, it seems to me that adding my name to the list of signatories would imply my support of the claim of the sum total of the framers to be authentic, biblical Christians…
Read my full blog here http://www.sbcimpact.net/2009/11/27/radical-unity-radical-separation/
Forgive me then, J.R. (above a 11.26.09/1:50), I read your reply to indicate a conflation of abortion with all provider refusals, not you personally.
It is unethical to allow that institutions have conscience protections. Individuals, yes. However, if you work in the medical professions, your first loyalty should be to the patient (according to the modern Hippocratic Oath) and to scientific address of health care needs. The institution is responsible for serving all with equality and best practice.
If the institution allows doctors to select which services they perform, then the institution should provide willing doctors or timely, informed, convenient referrals. Lest we find ourselves in a situation constitutionally where those with power and “expertise” begin to dictate personal choice.
There are other instances that don’t involve current ethical and religious directive (ERD) restrictions that fall outside of individual approval, yet it is discrimination to allow others’ lifestyle choices determine one’s treatment, informing, or referring of patients.
Interracial marriage, say, may not be something a doctor agrees with (like the recent Louisiana judge), yet when performing social services like fertilization, particularly those funded by the government, one is (and should be) required to set aside personal prejudice.
I suspect the difference you and I may have is what we call discrimination.
If asked, many doctors at Catholic hospitals would perform such services outside the ERDs, yet their institution dictates their practice. I find this to be discrimination against the doctor’s and the patient’s rights.
Not one of us is fit or able to judge that a lesbian woman is not entitled to fertility treatment, or that an unmarried woman can not have contraceptives. God is the judge and it is a horrible presumption to speak for his judgement, particularly when other denominations work for acceptance and equality. “No one church is the right one but mine,” is historically a brutal row and a path to injustice.
Hi Ann, thanks for your apology and I am happy to accept it and move forward. Thank you also for answering my question. I appreciate it. While most of this topic goes beyond the scope of my post, I will do my best to answer.
We have some areas of agreement and disagreement–as should be expected in an area with so much complexity.
1. We agree that individuals should have the right to ERD.
2. If the medical institution is privately owned, they too should, and do, have a constitutional protection to ERD which supersedes the Hippocratic oath.
3. I agree that doctors should provide referrals as a help to patients. I don’t see any moral or ethical dilemma in referrals.
4. There should be no public funding for abortions, fertility, sterilization, or any other of the issues you mention. Pubic funding of these violates my free choice. However, if people chose to pay for these things, like fertility drugs, then they should do so on their own or with their private insurer or with the support of family.
5. There should be no Federal laws governing any of these choices. I believe such laws violate the State’s rights guaranteed in the Constitution. If CA wants it legal, then let the people decide. If Tennessee was to ban a procedure, let the voters decide. And people are then free to move and live in the State of their choice. That is freedom and respect for diversity.
J.R. – I agree with 1. only with caveats. All patients should be informed of their options and all hospitals and individuals should be up-front with what they provide. The patient’s rights are paramount in such health care services. Anything less is misleading and dishonest.
2. Not to get into so many misconceptions of the Hippocratic oath, but it does not say what you think it says. It was written in 4 BC before medical science and I question literal interpretation of any such document. Not all doctors swear by it when graduating, etc. ERDs are specifically Catholic. I see no reason why a facility that serves a mixed community, particularly as a sole provider, has a right to limit that community’s services, particularly services which have been proven to benefit a community.
3. You may not see one but many service providers do. Giving a woman a referral (or even information) for sterilization goes against Catholic Right beliefs; this signifies that you draw a line that others don’t and that you and I may have more agreement than we originally supposed.
4. Public funding is a ruse. If I believe in home schooling, I could contest school taxes. Or road taxes. Or Pentagon funds. Or welfare funding. As a community – and this is where religious doctrine is selective – we are responsible for others in the community. Our federal funds pay for much more than our religion or beliefs allow. There is no violation of your free choice, you choose which services or ideas to live by. But as a member of this commonwealth, you are responsible in some way for the livelihood, freedom of choice and services of all. You are missing the issue of privilege in all this: some have the resources to access necessary services and some don’t, because of no fault of their own. If you wish to draw their lines at your faith, you are imposing on them, not exercising your freedoms.
5. There are scant federal laws governing patients’ rights and here is the horror of our medical system, where services are provided by facilities and organizations who have not put patient choice first. History has shown us that for protection of minorities or “unpopular” services and rights, democracy does not work. Prejudice is a slow horror to change. Think civil rights (and the continuing poverty of the black community in America because of “entitlement” rhetoric, prejudice, etc which keeps black men uneducated and unemployed).
Allowing states to decide when a US citizen, say a woman, has children is draconian. The federal government has laws regarding all sorts of rights. Personal rights are not a popularity contest and they are not subject to another’s faith.
Respect for diversity is not limiting other’s choice by one ideology or a state’s ideology, or even by “democratic” majority. Democracy is a beautiful thing but our form of it, rather antiquated when compared to other democracies in the world, does little to protect religious freedom from religious tyranny.
If it did, same-sex marriage would not still be an issue. Because a majority of Americans know little about homosexuality (see the recent evangelical “outlaw” of frontal hugs between men? Absurd.) and assume that their faith and way is life is paramount, they prevent gays and lesbians from enjoying full rights. That’s not freedom, it’s subjugation to an ideology that not all abide by. Letting a hospital decide who can sit by the bed of a dying person, as many do with homosexual couples, is prejudice, discrimination, and immoral. Legal enforcement of such discrimination should be an outrage.
And lastly, should your state ban blogs, say, would you move? Would it be their right to infringe on your free speech? Now what if you were a woman with three children and didn’t want, could not afford more, and your state said you either had to stop having sex with your husband or move. Would that be discrimination?
Personal freedom, particularly in health care, must be universal. Nothing is more private than the body. Discrimination against these health services comes from fear and lack of knowledge. A woman’s sterilization does not effect your freedom, your family, or your rights. Why then would you impose on hers and find that imposition justified?
Religious freedom is not for some. It is for all. Our laws and medical access must – and I hope someday will – reflect that.
Hi Ann,
I do have a question for you regarding your statement, “All patients should be informed of their options and all hospitals and individuals should be up-front with what they provide.”
So I assume then you oppose Planned Parenthood’s practice of not informing women of their options and alternatives to abortion? Have you written on this topic? Maybe you can share a link to your blog. Thanks.
You wrote, “Respect for diversity is not limiting other’s choice by one ideology or a state’s ideology, or even by “democratic” majority.”
Actually Ann, it is defined by limiting the choice of others. People can’t choose to molest children, rape women, or steal property. We limit choices based on ideology all the time.
Govt. limits the right to smoke in public, drink, use drugs, not use seat-belts, where I can build a house, how I can build a house, pollution, etc… All of these limit choices for what is considered by the majority to be of greater value.
To suggest otherwise is just silly.
You wrote, “And lastly, should your state ban blogs, say, would you move? Would it be their right to infringe on your free speech”
Ann, I hope you are not seriously suggesting this is the logical conclusion of my assertion. If you are, then clearly you have no meaningful understanding of constitutional law. I appreciate you engaging my point, but please, with all due respect my friend, try to engage in a serious manner. Nothing I wrote regarding State’s rights can infringe on the specific rights granted through our Constitution. That is the definition of a Constitutional Republic and if banning blogs is strongest argument you can come up then you position is very weak.
You wrote, “Public funding is a ruse. If I believe in home schooling, I could contest school taxes. Or road taxes. Or Pentagon funds. Or welfare funding. As a community – and this is where religious doctrine is selective – we are responsible for others in the community.”
I oppose all Federal funding not mandated in the Constitution. It has nothing to do with religion, as you once again incorrectly assume. The Constitution allows for the Federalized funding of only a few specific items, and Education is not one of them. Healthcare is another. So there is no inconsistency in my view, just confusion in your false assumptions of the argument.
J.R.
Your points:
Re: Planned Parenthood. When was the last time you visited a Planned Parenthood? Your assumption about informed consent is not only false, but by assuming that a woman is coerced into abortion, it’s paternalistic. In the weeds for a moment: Statistics show that the way to decrease abortions is to make contraception access easier and cheaper; and to teach young men and women comprehensive sex education. No woman wants to have an abortion. It’s not a fun procedure that women just can’t wait to go through. Women have abortions because they have a difficult choice. That a fetus is a child is largely a religious view in this country and not one that, obviously, one out of three women agree with. Abortion is legal.
Regarding ideology, I’m discussing the imposition of non-science based religious views on non-religous individuals. The thread did start with the Manhattan Declaration, an attempt by the Catholic and religious right to infuse federal policy with certain religious ideology. Sorry if my above comment took us into other areas like rape and public smoking (which I in no way categorize with abortion-restricting laws, same-sex marriage opposition or other religiously imposed discriminations). Religious freedom requires that all faiths and beliefs are honored. Regulating health care and social services according to religious doctrine should be opposed by all those who abide by ideas of religious freedom.
Literal interpretation of the constitution is not practical nor just. Society changes and laws should reflect contemporary issues and technologies. Education and health care are human rights that our government is responsible to protect.
I’d like to note that I am not silly, nor your friend. I’ve commented here because it is a public blog and because I hoped for a balanced discussion. Your tone is indicative of a moral superiority that I do not accept; it’s demeaning (because I am a woman who should have no say in health care rights? Because I do not ascribe to your version of faith?). I will drop out now. Thank you.
Anne,
You wrote, “When was the last time you visited a Planned Parenthood? Your assumption about informed consent is not only false, but by assuming that a woman is coerced into abortion, it’s paternalistic.”
You have a penchant to put thoughts and words into my mouth and make unfounded assumptions. I hope someday you can break this habit because it truly prevents meaningful dialogue.
You wrote, ” The thread did start with the Manhattan Declaration, an attempt by the Catholic and religious right to infuse federal policy with certain religious ideology. Sorry if my above comment took us into other areas like rape and public smoking (which I in no way categorize with abortion-restricting laws, same-sex marriage opposition or other religiously imposed discriminations). ”
Anne, you attempted to illustrate your point by saying “what if blogging was restricted” Now don’t try to bring it back to the substance of the post when you used an illustration you clearly now regret. The reasonable response to to concede your error instead of defending it.
You wrote, “Literal interpretation of the constitution is not practical nor just. Society changes and laws should reflect contemporary issues and technologies.”
You make my point very well that you have no understanding of what forms a Constitutional Republic. The States are the ones who are designed to respond to these issues. If a State believes it is a “right” then the voters then have the ability to meet the needs of technology and time. The Federal system is not designed to meet those needs and forcing it into that role changes the form of government. I know this is hard for you to understand, but I really encourage you to spend some time thinking about the consequences of what you are proposing.
You wrote, “I’d like to note that I am not silly, nor your friend. I’ve commented here because it is a public blog and because I hoped for a balanced discussion. Your tone is indicative of a moral superiority that I do not accept; ”
Anne, I would ask that you reread your posts. Several times now you have told me that I “do not understand” something based on your assumptions. I am not claiming any moral superiority. I can understand someone like you feeling humbled because of your demonstrated ignorance regarding the Constitution and that it is easier to get “offended” than respond with informed discourse. You have consistently put arguments into my words that did not exist based on your own bias. When you are ready to open your mind and move beyond your own religious prejudices, I hope you will come back and talk some more.
My name is Ann. I’ve “demonstrated ignorance” because I don’t hold your views. My apology for straying the conversation was not humble or literate enough? I am unable to read? I am assuming? I am closed minded? I have religious prejudices because I support patients’ right? Human right? Get your last word on this blog. I hope it validates your unjustified demeanor. You’ve soured me on discourse with you.
Sorry I misspelled your name Ann.
Every response illustrates your failing to read properly what I am writing Ann.
Just as you asserted my ignorance of the Hippocratic Oath, the ignorance I mentioned is in regard to the Constitution, and not because we disagree on some specific aspects of healthcare. And no, you are not prejudiced because you support patients rights (this is just more example of your unwillingness to read with an open mind), you demonstrate religious prejudice Ann because you have pre-judged my views based on religious assumptions rather than an understanding of the substance of what I write.
I have a feeling you would not be so offended if you could look beyond your ideological perspective. I regret I have not been able to phrase my replies in a way that could help achieve this goal.
I bid you peace Ann.
Here are a few problems I have.
If we talk about religious liberty, then what if someone’s religion allows for “gay marriage”? How can I oppose religious intolerance but then uphold a ban on gay marriage? That seems to be inconsistent to me Joe. It seems like the only liberty I would be fighting for is Christian religious liberty, while I believe that all should have full liberty.
2. It is a buidling of a moral battle ground, which doesn’t line up with the New Testament. It wasn’t politics, rules, regulations they fought for, it was the Gospel. This seems to be highly politically infused and I personally struggle with that. I am not saying beleivers can not participate, but for me, if we are going to fight for a moral country then it should be strict morals. If we are going to fight against gay marriage, then why not fornication and divorce itself?
3. I think we should be meeting to pray for then employ creative ways to proclaim the good news. This just seems like a lot of political conservativism cloaked in Christian language.
Those are my thoughts and why I wouldn’t sign it brother. I am sure that others would sign it for good reasons. Ultimately I hope Christ is glorified with it rather I agree or not, because that is all that is important at the end of the day
Hi Lionel,
I agree with you on 2 & 3 and this is my concern that it reduces Faith in the Way to a political movement.
I think I view “religious liberty” differently from most of the signers, so I am not sure how the signers would respond to your first point. I need to spend some more time reading up on this, but finding time to read seems an impossible task these days.
That is why I read blogs like yours
I don’t believe this declaration is going to make a difference, regardless of what any of us think about it… or who signs it.
I know I’m often the lone man out in my feelings on politics, but I must continue to voice my own convictions… for I am a believer in Jesus too.
At this point, the more that Christians involve themselves with the politics of the Empire… the faster we shall see the crumbling and demise of American Christianity. I personally think this would serve the Kingdom well.
IF (and that’s a big “if”)… if there ever is a time when Christ-followers should tell the worldly kingdoms how to do their jobs… that time has gone for us. In the past, an “evangelical” Christian has been a political party to pander to in order to get a vote for war… and to lure with anti-abortion slogans. Soon it will be the party to eliminate; a group of self-righteous bigots that are intolerant and haters of society.
I won’t sign the document. But for reasons that aren’t popular among most Christian circles. Yes, the document is largely void of the Gospel, yes… it ignores huge doctrinal divides and links arms with apostates… but still there are other reasons that I believe strike closer to the heart of Christ than we are able to see because of the unhealthy alliance we have with the state. We’ve rendered much to Caesar already. That’s the problem.
I would be tempted to sign the declaration if it was void of religious language (upholding LIFE) and it was signed by folks from all backgrounds. But one thing is for sure… I would never sign a religio-political document with the likes of James Dobson or anyone else from the Religious Right.
The church has lost her right to shout. The time is near that we suffer like Christ and follow in his footsteps here in the US. May the Lord show us how to rejoice in sorrow and love in the face of hatred.
The time has come for the church to cry… in order that the Lord may be her comforter. So that the world may know we belong to Jesus of Nazareth; the one who was murdered by the “free” state.
As my most recent cartoon, “Blind Foxes & The Rock” illustrates, I am much closer to you David than I am to Dobson. The “Evangelical love affair with political power has done tremendous damage to the people of the Way.
Ha! Nice cartoon, Joe. Appreciate you, bro.
My opinion on this is a little long, but I wrote it on my blog,
“As Christians we need to get back to the Bible, we need to teach our children from it, we need to preach from it we need to evangelize from it. The Bible has lost its place in many Churches and because of this, the people have lost a sense of what’s right and wrong. The Bible gives us a very clear insight into the mind of God, reading it will help us to understand him better. I would like to make a call to get back to the Word and deal with the world by it.”
fell free to read the rest
http://zachoglesby.com/2009/12/the-manhattan-declaration/
Joe,
I’m asking you for help on my Logos 4 for Mac and ran across your blog.
Reformation 21 on December 9 has some key Christian Leaders on why they didn’t sign it. Interesting insights and there is also a key leader who did and why.
I didn’t realize you had a ‘bog’ that is so informing. I’ll like to know you better.
I’m a pastor in a small town in Indiana.
Blessings,
glen
Hi Glen, nice to make your acquaintance. Glad I can help out with Logos and the info on my blog. Keep in touch brother!